originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Theoretically, capitalism in its current form has a very limited lifespan already. I have read before (and cannot find the infographic I'm thinking of for the life of me) a very convincing scenario where capitalism causes a race to its destruction.
I'll do my best to summarize. Capitalism drives creativity (not necessarily exclusively but to deny this point is silly), therefore eventually technology will advance to the point where every job you could possibly have is done by a machine. This results in "labor" being nonexistent in the traditional sense and since the central driving force of capitalism is labor, the system will cease to exist. The result is a place where you either must be paid for non-productive labor, or you must be handed what you need to live or perhaps thrive. This creates an interesting dynamic where full power lies entirely in the hands of those who controlled the means of production before labor went extinct, and the final result is more or less Huxley's Brave New World, only with corporations (that is, operators of the new labor force that doesn't require wages) being in complete control of society.
English
-
[quote]technology will advance to the point where every job you could possibly have is done by a machine. This results in "labor" being nonexistent in the traditional sense and since the central driving force of capitalism is labor, the system will cease to exist.[/quote] This sounds like bad science fiction as opposed to an economic forecast or philosophy. I would consider this a form of the Luddite fallacy.
-
[quote]Theoretically, capitalism in its current form has a very limited lifespan already. I have read before (and cannot find the infographic I'm thinking of for the life of me) a very convincing scenario where capitalism causes a race to its destruction. I'll do my best to summarize. Capitalism drives creativity (not necessarily exclusively but to deny this point is silly), therefore eventually technology will advance to the point where every job you could possibly have is done by a machine. This results in "labor" being nonexistent in the traditional sense and since the central driving force of capitalism is labor, the system will cease to exist. The result is a place where you either must be paid for non-productive labor, or you must be handed what you need to live or perhaps thrive. This creates an interesting dynamic where full power lies entirely in the hands of those who controlled the means of production before labor went extinct, and the final result is more or less Huxley's Brave New World, only with corporations (that is, operators of the new labor force that doesn't require wages) being in complete control of society.[/quote] Completely agree that diminishing labor is the death of capitalism. I don't think the monetary policy we currently have is helping either. In the future the driving force of an economy will be intellect. If human intellect becomes less efficient than a machines, we'll either go extinct or just be along for the ride as our machines carry us through space.
-
*machine overlords* carry us through space
-
You're missing variables such as the Age of Abundance when monetary systems really become obsolete and ideas will be the driving force for progression.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere. Would this support a hypothesis I've had for a while, where progression toward/into other economic systems is part of a natural cycle? As a true system of capitalism reaches the end of its lifespan, eventually we'll have to become more socialistic and "bigger government" to make up for what we lost to capitalism? If that's the case, would fighting to keep such a system of capitalism alive actually be doing us more harm than good?
-
[quote]Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere. Would this support a hypothesis I've had for a while, where progression toward/into other economic systems is part of a natural cycle? As a true system of capitalism reaches the end of its lifespan, eventually we'll have to become more socialistic and "bigger government" to make up for what we lost to capitalism? If that's the case, would fighting to keep such a system of capitalism alive actually be doing us more harm than good?[/quote] You're ripping off Marxism. It's not "your" hypothesis by any stretch of the imagination.
-
Edited by Mad Max: 9/28/2013 5:19:42 AMWell [i]excuse [/i]me. I haven't studied Marx or any others, as I clearly stated in the OP. I was not aware this was widely known.
-
[quote]Well [i]excuse [/i]me. I haven't studied Marx or any others, as I clearly stated in the OP. I was not aware this was widely known.[/quote] All is forgiven.
-
It's not necessarily a cycle simply because there will be no regression into capitalism unless in some bizarre way the human race is nearly wiped out and technological progress loss is significant. The final result of the system, because of our current and never ending march to mastery of our reality, is the destruction of the system. The only way to avoid getting to this place is to stop technological progression, which is not only bad for its own sake, but also impossible. It seems as though mankind is on a self-made time bomb that's impossible to disarm and the best course of action is to figure out how to live in the world after the bomb goes off.
-
True. I suppose "cycle" was the wrong word. Perhaps "natural progression" is more fitting.